facebook ridiculousness, part deux

and so it continues. I got this gem today:

all i can say is. W.T.F.. that does not look like english to me, and I am decidedly not japanese.  The only part of that that i understood gets cut off with ellipses!)  The suspense is killing me! the pokemon what? Why is pikachu leaping? This is a cruel joke, when they tease you like that, i just HAD to click on the ad..

and i landed here: http://www.pokemon.co.jp/corporate/

I can only surmise that this is the pokemon company, based in japan. everything is half english and half japanese, everything i click on leads me to even more undecipherable web pages and some pictures of cute imaginary creatures.

My eggs are worth $8K and I like pikachu. Is this Facebook, or is this South Park?

Facebook thinks I'm an Asian Egg Donor

I just got this ad targeted to me on facebook:

.....

Where to begin?? Let's start with the copy:

"Asian Egg Donors Earn $8K"

I get that they're trying to customize this ad somewhat to my ethnicity by putting "Asian" on there. But, 1. does this mean if I were of another race, that I would earn more or less? Does my ethnicity equate my monetary potential in this market of egg donors?

Let's move on to the image:

Decidedly "Asian"?? I think not. Asians don't all look like that - there are over a billion people in India who don't look like that picture. If I were Indian and I saw that ad, that would be of no relevance for me whatsoever. Now you can argue that the company is using a less inclusive term of "Asian", which I guess includes women who share similar features as that model in the picture. Which now presents a problem with the egg donation clinic's ethnic categorization - did the company inadvertently admit that they don't think Indians are Asians?

Now let's talk about the targeting. I'm assuming this company went about facebook targeting the same way a lot of us do - select from Facebook's menu of options and then add some keywords. They probably entered some common Chinese/Japanese/whatever they think is "Asian" names - and I guess my last name (which is a pretty popular Asian name) fit into the category they are targeting. However, I wonder if they considered the fact that I may be adopted, or that I may be half Asian, or I married an Asian guy. But I guess this sort of crass targeting fits into their overall way of thinking, as demonstrated by their equally crass definition of "Asian".

Well done, egg donation clinic. I hope you are paying on a cost per click basis.

Creative + Media = Awesomeness

Every once in a while you come across a campaign that is just so right in every sense, this is one of them:

http://creativity-online.com/work/lionsgate-the-last-exorcism-chatroulette-promotion/21047

Lionsgate's coming out with a new crappy movie "the last exorcism", I think the movie execs knew that it was going to bomb at the box office, so they came up with the best solution ever -- put the most amazing marketing campaign behind it to drive excitement. I'm pretty sure that's the strategy that was stated in the RFP.

Anyways, where do we even begin?? There's so much crap out there in the ad/media industry that I get so excited when something good actually happens. Let's start with the creative. Everyone knows sex sells, this little trailer has got it. SOoooo simple! But I bet it took the creative shop lots of beer and long nights to come around to that. Moving on, media (much more exciting). This placement takes into account at least 3 different hot trends in media and churns out a perfect marriage of them:

1. online video
2. Social media/viral sharing/earned media vs. paid media
3. Branded and integrated content

Video is attracting more and more attention as an effective form of online advertising, blend this with a video populated with interesting content, as well as the natural inclination of users to share content online, and this is the result.

This campaign is a great media campaign, because it leverages the unique capability of the platform of chatroulette to further extend the creative messaging -- no other site can do this except for chatroulette. The planning behind this is exactly what I think we should really strive to answer as media strategists - what is unique about this specific site that we can utilize for our campaign? So many placements are thoughtlessly distributed, too many ROS units, too much clutter. This one really stands out.

Love this campaign.

(Re)Defining media

So I've been thinking about this for some time now, and it's become a topic of constant frustration. The way online advertising is being done right now isn't efficient, and we all know it. We buy these banner ads and these facebook ads, thinking that they will drive awareness or whatever it is that the campaign goal is. But the truth is, they don't. CTR (if you're still judging by CTR) are at .03-.05%. Which is atrocious. Brand studies only tell so much of the story. The problem isn't with measurement tools, although they certainly can be improved upon, I think the problem rests with us, the media planners, the advertisers, the brands themselves. We are trying to use the same old advertising model for a medium that requires a completely different kind of model. It's like fitting an old key into a new lock, it just won't crack open that way.

Traditionally, there have been 5 main outlets of media -- Print, Out of Home, Direct Response (mail), Radio, TV. These channels all share something in common -- they are all one way streets. The consumer can't take actions against the ads, or they can't take actions immediately after the fact. This inspired a very simple media formula: put the ad in front of the consumer; just make sure the consumer sees it. There was no more needed because the traditional channels could not provide anything more than an outlet for advertising. However, with the emergence of the digital space, this formula needs to change. The internet has revolutionized a fundamental structure of society: communication. Instead of the one way street, we now have two way streets, intersections, communication highways. Not only can people respond to each other in a matter of seconds, multiple people can respond to multiple other people in a matter of seconds. This upgrade to the way we communicate to each other has been ingrained into the newer generation, and as they grow up with this kind of technology, our old formula of just putting stuff in front of them will not work anymore. There is already a lot of banner blindness and a lot of disregard and insensitivity around the types of creative in online media. Who notices the bottom 728x90 anymore? Who cares about the skyscraper on the left side of the page? We need to be more direct with our consumers. The internet allows for immediate and intimate connections to be made, why not use that to evolve advertising? Why can't we upgrade the media formula to unlock the full potential of the internet? The new age of engagement is here -- we need to get the user to participate in the conversation around the brand, not through blunt force (like pre-rolls or homepage takeovers with no close out button), but through active Q&A. We need to find out what interests our target audience, what drives them to participate in the activities they do online -- what will make them take an action on behalf of a brand? Why is someone brand loyal to one product but not the other? We need to do a better job of understanding what factors go into our consumers' decision making when they are buying something. We can't just segment them into adults 25-54, interested in xyz, lives in so and so house. We need to define them differently, instead of demographics, we need to look at a mixture of psychographics and behavioral data.

This is getting too philosophical, but humans are creatures of habit. We don't like change, really, unless it has to happen. We're happy with the status quo because we are comfortable with the status quo. The saying past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior didn't just come out of nowhere. This is why theoretically, behavioral targeting should work -- we look at these data points, put you in a bucket, and then show you ads that are supposedly of interest to you. However, the algorithms don't always work -- the frequency and the recency of the data don't always play important roles as they should. Plus, we are still showing the consumers display ads, and helllooo? Weren't we just talking about banner blindness and the awful CTR? Furthermore, you're only looking at online behavior, that is only one aspect of the person's life. Sure, they may browse online for Vuitton bags and Tory Burch flats; but in real life, they're probably shopping at Target or Walmart for look a likes. (Speaking of look a likes, my rant on look a like modeling to follow in a couple of days). Anyways, my point is, online behavior data only tells the advertiser so much -- there are so many other aspects of a person's life you need to look at in order to serve up advertising that is relevant and will get the consumer's attention and interest. To fill that gap, we should be looking at psychographic data - we need to merge the field of psychology and advertising together to come up with a model that actually will help advertising become more relevant. In order to do this practically, we survey a pool of our consumers, the same way psych researchers conduct their tests, and we form a psychological profile of our consumers. After we have that profile, we then match it to the online behaviors of our test audience, and then wa-la, we have a new way of defining the audience. We should do this constantly to keep up with changing consumer behavior -- as the economy gets worse/better, consumer attitudes will change, online behavior will change, this is the nature of the internet, it's constantly changing and evolving, and we need to keep up with that to the best of our ability. This way, we can make our ads more relevant and decrease the level of skepticism and negativity surrounding advertising. Because I do believe in the value of advertising, I believe that it serves as a powerful communication channel between brands and consumer, and that the online medium can make it even more powerful and positive - if we do it right.

Ethics!

I am struggling with the notion of ethical responsibility in advertising. This industry has long been known for its willingness to do anything to promote a product, going far and beyond what is politically correct (think cigarettes and pharma). Often, there is public backlash, and the agency or brand would apologize and eventually everything blows over. For cigarettes, the outcome was a law that required consumers to be warned of the dangers of smoking on all ads. However, how effective is that warning, really? Much like banner blindness, many people are so used to seeing the little white box with lots of text that they don’t really read the message anymore. Much more effective are those NYC smoking ads that show the real harmful effects of smoking. But I digress. Ads for cigarettes are usually promoting a harmful product, recently, though, I’ve been noticing somewhat of a reverse trend: ads that use highly controversial things to promote harmless products or good causes.

It seems to me that in an effort to cut through the clutter, a lot of ads are crossing the line. I’ve been noticing a lot of shock creative pieces:

(not condoned or authorized by the WWF, but still…)

It’s no question that they work in terms of grabbing people’s attention, and could be effective, however, I think there should be some level of responsibility or accountability in advertising. Using a disaster such as 9/11 to promote another cause seems to compromise the sanctity of the original event (pardon the holier-than-thou sounding attitude). I just think that there are some topics that should be left alone, because of its history or implications, they should not be used for purposes of promotional profit.

One example is the following:

I get the message (I think). Kids are innocent and accepting, let them build a better world. This message (the message, not the ad itself) can work in building a strong, loyal relationship with the consumer because a consumer who believes in peace in mankind can align his beliefs with this brand. However, as a friend pointed out, the KKK is just not funny. You can’t put any kind of positive spin on the KKK because of what it represents – pure, unadulterated hatred for a group of people just because of skin color; and a mission to destroy that group. The KKK is something that has no place in advertising, there is no rhyme or reason for using such a controversial group to promote a kid’s toy. It’s shocking, it’s definitely memorable, but is it responsible? Is the KKK really something to make light of? I don’t think so.

Then there’s this debacle:

Yes, I get it, choose music over cocaine. But did the ad have to do this to make their point? Cocaine addiction is a serious issue, people die because of it. Using that to sell magazines seems trivial. Drug addition is neither funny nor positive. And when it comes down to it, can we really compare consuming information (about music), to consuming a substance that ruins lives?

I’ve been mulling over this ethics in advertising issue for as long as I’ve been interested in advertising. And this whole post started because of the video I linked to in yesterday’s post. As advertisers, we have a huge influence on pop culture and by proxy, shape society. There is effective advertising, and then there is good advertising. They are not mutually exclusive, but it seems to me that in the pursuit of profit, more and more advertisers are choosing to forgo responsibility in favor of shock value.

Are you my father?

So there's been this web video being circulated on the web, with a woman holding her baby, talking about how the kid (named August) was a result of a one-night stand, and she would like the father to contact her. Now it's just been revealed that it was a fake video, made by Grey to drum up some viral hype for Visit Denmark.


So this was a successful viral video, because it got a lot of attention and a lot of people knew about it. However, this is simply irresponsible advertising. It's exploitation -- a tale of a single mother doing all that she can for the kid, and she has no idea who the father is; her *fictional* kid, would have grown up without a father. This is a touching story and really grabs us emotionally, however, how would you feel if you were told that this entire story was constructed in the hopes that a few more people will come to Denmark and spend their tourist dollars there? Using such a human story for such a capitalistic and for-profit purpose seems simply wrong.

Too much of a good thing?

We’ve always thought of targeting as a good thing. For example, as marketers, we first identify our target audience, this includes demographics and sometimes psychographic features, and then we go after these audiences with messages that we think will appeal to them. Choosing where to place these messages has always been a big part of whether or not the campaign would be successful. And, ad dollars being what it is these days, media placements are even more thought about and streamlined. Just read a very interesting article from the NY Times about a new branch of Mediabrands, called Geomentum, that will “figure out how to divide ad dollars among the almost 40,000 ZIP codes in the United States, sometimes zeroing in on even smaller areas, like a city block”. This (and copious amounts of caffeine) just got me thinking: is this kind of hyper-targeting really a good thing? Can zeroing in too much be potentially limiting?

To start off, here’s a quote from the article:

“In a simple example, a company selling drugstore makeup for Asian women ought to advertise in neighborhoods where lots of Asian women live, and not bother pitching its products in neighborhoods heavy on white men. Once Geomentum narrowed down where Asian women lived, it would then analyze how a billboard in the neighborhood performed, versus a newspaper ad, versus a dollar-off coupon, by writing a long equation that linked store traffic and local product sales with all those variables”.

This may seem pretty logical at first, if this company’s target market is Asian women, why would they want to spend their money in a neighborhood full of white men? However, I couldn’t help but wonder…

True, putting the ads in an Asian-women-heavy neighborhood may save money, but it also puts the brand in a corner. For example, if the brand exclusively promotes its products in Asian women-heavy areas, then it may be seen by the general population as a niche product, one that only works for Asian women. This may prove to be problematic for company growth and diversification in the long run.

Also, as a brand, you can simply never know what someone is thinking when they see your product. For all the aforementioned company may know, the neighborhood full of white men may contain 20% Asian women – in the roles of girlfriends and friends. In this increasingly diverse, social, and integrated world, one can’t draw simple conclusions based on zip codes anymore.

So I think this whole super micro-targeting thing is good for the short term, as it may give brands a higher return, but as it always is the case, successful brands need to balance the short and long term benefits, and really think about how every move will impact the brand perception and value to its consumers. Much like the concept of sales and discounts, this super micro-targeting technique may help in the short term, but what about its value in the long run? Done right, this may be a valuable part of the campaign, but if brands relied too much on this, they may find themselves spending more money to fix their images.

Mainstreaming

I'm watching "So You Think You can Dance", and one of the judges mused at the fact that they have 3,000 audience members in the Kodak theater "watching dancers!". The implication being that Dancing is popular now, it's "in" now. Which got me thinking, can you mainstream everything now? I mean look at our TV programs these days: Top Chef (cooking? Why would you spend hours watching people dice onions?); Dancing with the Stars (old people trying to dance?); Project Runway (fashion is great, but nearly 4 million viewers per week? 4 million people watching designers cut and glue fabric together...); the Biggest Loser (watching a whole bunch of people running on treadmills)...all these shows turn mundane or otherwise niche activities into the feature presentation. What is it about these shows that keep drawing millions of viewers every week? Methinks it's a combination of good editing (HUMAN DRAMA!!!), and peer pressure.

Good editing first -- you need the good editing to draw viewers, they have to be entertained, and what better entertainment than drama? There's an interesting post at Mind Matters about how when we watch TV, we get less lonely because we experience something called the parasocial relationship phenomenon:

• "Parasocial relationships are the kind of one sided pseudo-relationships we develop over time with people or characters we might see on TV or in the movies. So, just as a friendship evolves through spending time together and sharing personal thoughts and opinions, parasocial relationships evolve by watching characters on our favorite TV shows, and becoming involved with their personal lives, idiosyncrasies, and experiences as if they were those of a friend"

So good editing is needed in order to establish that parasocial relationship. A good show will presumably be successful at this, and thus draw some audiences. But still, no matter how good the editing is, it's not good enough to draw upwards of 2 or 3 million viewers per episode.

This is where peer pressure comes in. The social aspect of watching these shows are valuable to us--for 2 separate reasons:

1. Participation in social context: We want to watch Idol so we can discuss it over the water cooler at work tomorrow: "ohmygod i can't believe so and so got kicked off! he was soooooo good!" If you're left out of that conversation, then you'd feel pretty alone, right? So you might as well spend an hour watching Idol just so you can join some conversations at work. Before you know it, you're emphatically expressing your grief over the loss of Sanjaya on Idol.

2. Demonstration of social value: These shows, with their format of competition, judge evaluation, and finally audience participation, have taken a step further than traditional shows in that they demonstrate a social value. They not only make the viewers part of the show (via voting or what not), but they also provide educational value. Through watching a half hour of So You Think You Can Dance, I now know the difference between par terre and en l'air . Equipped with this knowledge, I can participate in conversations that involve the show and/or the steps and throw in my two cents and sound like I know what I'm talking about. In this way, I can show off and demonstrate that I know stuff and that I am interesting: one way of attracting others.

This lethal combination of good editing and social value is what makes shows like Top Chef successful. Now, if we can only convert that idea to advertising...good creative+social value? Sounds like a winning campaign to me!

Hallmark going mobile

Hallmark, the card company, has announced that it's launching a line of mobile greeting cards. Yay Hallmark! I love seeing companies embrace technology, it gives them a new channel of revenue and it gives consumers more choices. It's a win win situation. I mean, if everyone just did everything the same old way and never took risks and never invested in anything new, then there'd be no progress and we'd all be pretty bored.

Mobile stuff is really interesting. I think it's the fact that it's so customizable and personal that makes it interesting. The question now becomes how to really target consumers through the mobile channel? There're so many reports out there stating top 10 ways to market through mobile, top 10 mistakes to avoid...but I still think that one can't just go by those. An iPhone user is pretty different from a Blackberry user, would the same kind of messaging work on both? I don't think so...market research firm Gfk claims that ads work better on iPhones-- proof that marketers need to really evaluate and think about consumers in more specific terms than "mobile user". If marketers can tailor their communication strategy based on the person that's using the device, rather than the fact that the person is using a device, then marketers would have more success in reaching people.

ARGH!

So I'm on my Google Reader and THIS is what I see.



I am so not amused. This is like the most lazy, stupidest way to promote a product. It's like, what's with that? Isn't there any other way to make your burgers seem more appealing, or is it because your burgers taste so bad that you have to sink to such low levels to promote it?

BK ads really make me angry, they are in general pretty controversial, but not in a good way--it's simply irresponsible advertising. Not that advertising has to be totally peppermint clean, but there are some moral codes that you should stick to, right? Like basic respect for the other gender.

Jimmy goes Cheap

The designer Jimmy Choo announced its collaboration with H&M for a cheaper shoes and accessories line. The fashion label is the latest in a slew of high-end designers forging partnerships with stores in order to produce cheaper and more accessible products. This trend of going down market has me wondering about the whole idea of Brand Equity: so in school, I learned that you can earn money based off of your brand if you have a well-established brand. To establish your brand, you need to figure out a couple of things that are central to your identity, and your messages have to relate to those characteristics. These characteristics will in turn, earn your brand some value and theoretically, will make people want to 1. buy your product, and 2. become loyal customers. So for example, Apple's brand is hip, great looking, and easy to use. They stick to those in all their commercials and messages, so people would want to buy an Apple product because of those 3 reasons.

For luxury products, one of the central characteristics that they all share is exclusivity, and exclusivity by way of price. In order to be a luxury line, your products must be inexplicably expensive. So a high price becomes one of the central defining characteristics of a luxury product. This characteristic is usually reinforced in all of the marketing for luxury lines -- most print ads for fashion houses give off the expensive vibe. So if designers such as Jimmy Choo are lowering their prices, then can they still be categorized under "Luxury"? If they have both cheap and expensive products, then how much of the brand image is the label compromising?

I guess my main issue is that when you have a brand that wants to be both accessible and exclusive at the same time, it's hard to make it work. Many brands have solved the problem by introducing separate lines within the same label, such as Marc by Marc Jacobs and Michael by Michael Kors. And I guess it's a good solution for now...but the Marc Jacobs brand (the main brand) is still seen as less exclusive than say, Prada, when their products cost about the same.